- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:
- Image:Justinpicture1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SqueakBox (notify | contribs).
- There are so many reasons to delete this!
- It is a photo of a living person claimed as fair use.
- It is taken from a commercial site that charged for the use of its content, and ownership has not been released.
- That site was, as it happened, an ILLEGAL SITE which was in the news for providing ILLEGAL CONTENT.
- The subject of the photograph, Justin Berry, was involved in the site both before and after he turned 18. The photograph is undated. It may or may not show him as a minor.
- Photographs of minors presented in a sexual context have been found to be illegal child pornography even when they do not include nudity.
- This image is claimed as notable because of its sexual context - advertising for a child pornography website.
- If the photograph is NOT itself illegal, then it is commercial content that Wikipedia has no permission to use.
- If the photograph IS illegal, it's...well then...it's illegal.
- All of this aside, concerns have been expressed by several editors, including me, that Justin Berry is not individually notable. I have proposed and received support for making the Justin Berry article a redirect to Kurt Eichenwald. That may already have happened by the time this IFD is considered.
So...it's a non-free photograph of a living person who is marginally notable. And it might be kiddie porn. DanB†DanD 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a snapshot, taken in a public place, of a fully clothed person doing nothing even remotely interesting in a McDonalds. I think "might be kiddie porn" is a huge stretch. Hermitian 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "might be kiddie porn" is a huge stretch. "Replaceable non-free image of a living person", on the other hand, isn't a stretch at all. —Angr 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder why such a boring image was used as advertising for an underage pornographic website then, and why a photograph of a living person that shows "nothing remotely interesting" is important enough that it's justifiable to copy it without permission from a commercial site and treat as fair use. DanB†DanD 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was permission to use, it wouldn't be a question of fair use. Bifurcating one criticism (of fair use) so it looks like two (permission & fair use) doesn't make it any more compelling. Justin Berry, like the rest of us, will never get any younger. Presumably, he's not going to fly to Mazatlan to let us photograph him, and, even if he did, he'll be the man he is now, not the teen he was then. The idea that people should have been able to see his picture and know he was underage (despite advertising his site as 18+), requires that the reader should be able to judge his appearance at the time in order to understand the contentions of his supporters and that of his critics in comparison to an objective fact like his appearance. --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion. My upload was to crop the now deleted Image:Justinpicture.jpg which was outing a person who worked at McDonald's and was pictured with Berry. I agree with Dan's arguments, SqueakBox 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The content wasn't your upload to start with, so this isn't a case of db-author. While I have come to agree with you about your removal of the McDonald's employee from the photo, I don't think it was outing her as anything but a hard worker.
- Additionally, on 19 August, you said that the image is "probably fair use." [1] What changed from them to now that you are convinced it can't possibly be fair use? --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the problems with this nomination are many, some subtle, some so at variance with the facts as to beggar belief.
- It is a photo of a living person claimed as fair use. What Dan leaves out is that it has a valid fair-use rationale that meets FU which has previously been reviewed. It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable.
- It is taken from a commercial site and ownership has not been released. That's the definition of fair use. The photo was watermarked by the (defunct) site in question until SqueakBox cropped it out of the photo.
- The site charged for the use of its content. This photo was used as a free promotional image that was posted on the unpaid section of the site, as well as being posted to newsgroups and message boards as a form of advertising.
- That site was an ILLEGAL SITE which was in the news for providing ILLEGAL CONTENT. That's as may be, but this image isn't an illegal image. The point is mostly correct but irrelevant to this discussion.
- The photograph is undated. It may or may not show Justin Berry as a minor. At last check, self-published images of late teenagers aren't illegal, nor does policy prohibit their use.
- Photographs of minors presented in a sexual context have been found to be illegal child pornography even when they do not include nudity. Another mostly correct, but irrelevant point. This image has no sexual content or context whatsoever. In the original image, Berry is standing behind the counter at a McDonald's restaurant in Mexico. He and the woman he stands next to are fully clothed and there is not insinuation of sexuality between them.
- This image is claimed as notable because of its sexual context - advertising for a child pornography website. A misleading statement. The image is notable in the context of Berry's fame as the "star" of a pornographic website. It has no sexual content and is not, in & of itself, part of any sexual context. This is an exercise in guilt by association.
- If the photograph is NOT itself illegal, then it is commercial content that Wikipedia has no permission to use. A restatement of #2 above. That's why it's used under a claim of fair use. Making the same point twice doesn't double its effectiveness.
- All of this aside, concerns have been expressed by several editors, including me, that Justin Berry is not individually notable. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of deleting this image. If the article is deleted, then the image goes away as fair use content not used in any article. It is not in any way a reason to delete the image separate from the article.
- This nomination appears to be a case of forum shopping when the nominator was unable to gain the advantage in a content dispute in the article. This image has been viewed and reviewed by a number of editors and admins. Its fair use rationale is solidly within policy guidelines. This nomination treads the fine line as to whether it is in good faith. --Ssbohio 01:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When and by whom was the fair-use rationale reviewed? DanB†DanD 02:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me go back & find out for you. Alternatively, you could check the GFDL history of the image. But, the GFDL history was wiped out when SqueakBox uploaded the cropped photo as a new image and didn't preserve its history. So, let me look in my talk page archive and see if I still have the bot notice or any other comments. --Ssbohio 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of priority removing the Mexican worker due to BLP privacy concerns has to be treated higher than keeping the site identifying watermark (and it was impossible to remove the worker and keep the watermark without manipulating the photo rather than just cropping it). Interestingly the original was then deleted, I assume speedily, which is another mark against it being fair use (ie it was deleted as non fair use. So tnhere is a strong argument that this should be speedily deleted, and especially given that once the BLP concerns have been met we dont even have the site watermark, SqueakBox 02:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Squeakbox, at the risk of being obtuse, could you explain the reason why the McDonald's worker pictured was a BLP violation? Was s/he doing something vulgar? Is working at McDonald's shameful (it would be for me, but that's subjective)? Presumably, s/he was simply in the background and was not named. My personal feeling is that to claim BLP violation is over the top, and that your deletion of the image has caused problems now, since you didn't preserve the history. Please be more careful in the future, and perhaps run suspected BLP violations by the Biography project or an admin before taking such drastic actions in the future. Jeffpw 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, check out Talk:Justin Berry#Pic crop for a discussion of the issue. SqueakBox convinced me that, on balance, including the McDonald's worker brought her unwillingly into this public situation more than it contributed to the article. I just wished it would have been uploaded as an update to the original image, to preserve the history accurately. --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, SqueakBox, your statement is disingenuous. The reason Justinpicture.jpg was deleted, as the deletion log states, is "Unused unfree copyrighted image. (WP:CSD#I5)." In other words, in the article (Justin Berry), you replaced that image with the cropped image, so that the original image was no longer used in any article; Therefore, it wasn't keepable as fair use anymore, an issue you created entirely by your own action. You caused its deletion, and now you speak of the deletion as though you were an uninvolved bystander. The image had a valid fair use claim until you orphaned it. Your words are contradicted by the deleting administrator's; The deleting administrator's words match the facts; Whom should I believe? How do you explain what you said & implied above in light of that? --Ssbohio 04:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a replaceable nonfree image. "It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable" is a totally spurious reason for keeping a nonfree image of a living person. As for legality, I pretty strongly doubt any reasonable court would consider this image child pornography, but that's neither here nor there for Wikipedia's purposes. —Angr 09:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it depicts Berry as he appeared when he was running his pornographic websites, not as he appears now, the image is not replaceable. That is the essence of fair use, and no amount of unsupported claims that it's replaceable will make it so. I could not take a picture of Berry now and use it to illustrate what visitors to his website saw then. They did not see a child in the conventional sense, and that information is as important to the reader as are Berry's allegations, of which the current Justin Berry article is largely constructed. --Ssbohio 14:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he really look so terribly different as a 21-year-old than he did as 17-year-old? And even if he does, is seeing what he looked like as a 17-year-old so crucial to understanding the article? What difference does it make what he looked like then? How does this image show that website visitors "did not see a child in the conventional sense"? The article does not discuss that claim at all (which is good, as it would almost certainly be original research); in fact the article never discusses Berry's physical appearance, either at the time, or now, or how it may have changed between then and now (which is good, as it would almost certainly be totally irrelevant). The image is not supporting any commentary at all, it is being used only to show what he looks like (I use the present tense intentionally), and is therefore replaceable with a current free image of him. —Angr 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the article after being decimated by an admin is currently the subject of an RfC in its talk page. The article previously discussed Berry's claim that all those on his websites were 18+, including himself. It previously discussed his recruitment of Mexican women to perform with him on the site, as reported in the media. It previously told much more of a whole story. The image shows the image Berry portrayed when he was running his pornographic websites. Ths is far different than the image he portrays now, as a paid public speaker, actor, model, and educator. The difference is significant. --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity when this section is reviewed: User:Ssbohio is actually the original uploader of this image and the author of its fair-use rationale. Some time ago, User:Squeakbox cropped out another individual and the logo of the porn site from which the image was taken and re-uploaded the cropped version, preserving User:Ssbohio's original rationale.
DanB†DanD 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the original image was uploaded by the person who possessed the image, at my request, as its its history explains. I provided the FU rationale per policy after it was uploaded. --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - compliant with WP:FUC, has a fair use rationale, and answers to nominator's questions provided above by Ssbohio dismiss some of the concerns (yes, it may have come from an illegal video, but it is neither advertising its source nor illegal in and of itself as an image. Orderinchaos 09:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not compliant with WP:FUC, as it violates WP:NFCC#1. The legality or otherwise of the source is irrelevant, and it's a pity the nominator brought it up, but it does not convey any significant information that a free image of him couldn't. —Angr 10:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Berry's notability is as a camwhore and operator of pornographic websites. The claim is that everyone should have known he wasn't 18 from his appearance at that time. Surely the reader of his article should be able to see what he looked like then & let that inform his judgment, right? How he looks now isn't at question & doesn't inform the article. --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ssbohio's lucid arguments. Jeffpw 10:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Pre-coffee snark removed.]
Also, the reviewing admin should know that, of the people commenting so far, only user:Angr is not a party to the present bitter quarrel over the Justin Berry article. Although this IfD is basically a question of fair use, the votes seem to be breaking down according to which side a commenter is on in that dispute. DanB†DanD 17:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That includes the nominator, who, by appearances & in the absence of a requested explanation, proposed this image for deletion after failing to make headway in further sanitizing the article via discussion on its talk page. Your reasons for deletion don't bear on fair use, except for one. You made this discussion about Berry's notability, whether an ordinary snapshot of him is pornographic or illegal, whether his website was illegal (do you know Mexican law?), and other points irrelevant to whether the image is validly fair use. It's hypocrisy to stir up argument over these other issues, then decry that others are responding to your allegations with their !votes. We don't vote on IfDs, we discuss, and your nom covered more than just reasons to delete this image over fair use. --Ssbohio 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly didn't mean to exclude myself, although I became involved in the ongoing quarrel through the images rather than the other way around.
- It may be true that I could have avoided some mess and unpleasantness had I focused only on the fair-use issue in my nomination.
- However, I don't agree that fair-use is the only problem with the images, or that the ethics of their content is irrelevant: I think they violate a number of points of WP:BLP, particularly the presumption of privacy and the principle "do no harm."
- DanB†DanD 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than saying the names of parts of BLP, could you cite how the image isn't in compliance with them? Berry himself publicized the photo, which makes it hard to presume it was meant to be a private moment in the middle of McDonald's. And where's the harm?
- Also, I just reviewed Dan's allegation about the editors on this IfD discussion, and, of the seven editors I count here, not one, but two are otherwise uninvolved in the larger discussion & RFC over the Justin Berry article. Of the other 5, DanB, SqueakBox, and Hermitian have all expressed doubts about Berry's notability, while myself and JeffPW have supported his notability. The largest plurality here is the plurality against keeping the underlying article. It's hard to infer conspiracy when the headcount shows something different. You washed your hands of the talk page discussion and immediately did your forum shopping at IfD, splitting two IFD noms over two days' pages. Your odds are arguably better that way, but should winning be the goal? --Ssbohio 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Every time I think it's not worth the aggravation, you use your "OMG SHADINESS! IFDS ON TWO DIFFERENT DAYS!!" line again and I get a little chuckle to sustain me. <3 <3 <3
- You're quite right about the uninvolved editors - I missed User:Orderinchaos completely, as he managed to just state his view and then leave rather than blathering on and on in a self-important manner. I have to learn that trick!
- DanB†DanD 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing another editor as blathering on in a self-important manner could be seen as incivil, or at least an attempt to argue semantics over substance. Be that as it may, my point about your making the IFDs on two different days becomes relevant when coupled with your only informing me of one of the IFDs. Now, letter of the law, you didn't have to inform me of both of them, but, by making them on two separate days, you made sure I wouldn't see both of them when I came in response to your notice. What was your motivation in making both of those decisions? It's an improbable, but not impossible, string of coincidences that, for some reason, obscured one of your deletion noms from my view and that of other potentially interested editors. It's one of the negative consequences of a ForestFire, this divide and conquer perception. All that having been said, can you cite how the presence of this image is a BLP problem, rather than naming the parts of the BLP policy you think apply, as I asked above? --Ssbohio 03:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reviewing admin, whoever you may be: I am genuinely sorry about this. Sitting on my hands from now on, I promise! DanB†DanD 06:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan, you cited reasons to delete that aren't valid, you claimed I uploaded the image when it's history plainly shows otherwise, and when I've challenged you on these things, you've responded in what I perceive as an aggrieved way. I bear you no ill will. I simply diagree with you. Please accept my apology if I gave you any other impression. I think you're wrong in this case, but I respect your contributions, both under this username and your other usernames. --Ssbohio 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize again for breaking my promise to shut up, but I've just realized that there is one aspect of the image that hasn't been completely discussed. user:SqueakBox uploaded the present version, and user:Ssbohio wrote the fair-use rationale, but it turns out that neither of them is the original uploader, which I didn't know. Above, Ssbohio says that it was uploaded by "the person who possessed the image." He provides a link to the image's history, but as that version of the file was deleted, the link doesn't work. Who is "the person who possessed the image"? Is he still active as an editor on Wikipedia? If so, shouldn't he be included in this discussion before it's closed?
DanB†DanD 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea, SqueakBox 23:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there's always the option of actually checking instead of speculating. The image's log page shows that it was uploaded by Pgdesign (talk · contribs). It has been his only contribution to Wikipedia, as far as I can tell from his contribs and his logs. I also checked his talk page, and he wasn't notified about this IfD. I don't think he's around to not see the notification he didn't get, though. :-) --Ssbohio 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Admin: At the Justin Berry talk page, Ssbohio gives a more complete narrative of his interaction with Pgdesign. DanB†DanD 05:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, indded. The IFD is supposed to be narrowly focused on the deletion question, not a steamer trunk in which to insert information that doesn't bear on that question, including facts readily available to those who look at logs and histories. --Ssbohio 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. Image fails NFCC #1. The copyrighted image is being used merely for identification of a living person.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
_Logo.png){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=delete){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=history){kind=link}
